London (1.3.09)
– We recently noted the Soil Association’s shifting of ground
on the matter of “air miles” (1) and wondered then whether they
might soon also change their attitude towards transgenic technology. We await
that possibility with bated breath.
Elsewhere, things are moving along nicely. The opposition of so-called “green”
movements to nuclear power in all its manifestations is beginning to crumble
as two conflicting pet ideas come into conflict: antipathy to nuclear power
and concern over the perceived dangers of climate change.
In Britain there is a realisation that the country is unlikely to meet its
“green” aspirations for power generation without concomitant carbon
dioxide release unless there is serious development on nuclear power. A letter
published recently in The Times (2) noted that during the UK’s
recent prolonged cold weather coal plants were being ramped up to shoulder
the lion’s share of electricity demand while wind energy provided only
0.4% of total demand. There were periods in January when wind hardly registered
at all.
Now it has been reported (3, 4) that four prominent environmentalists, the
former director of Greenpeace, the chairman of the Environment Agency, the
author of the Royal Society's science book of the year and a Green Party activist
and prospective parliamentary candidate have spoken out as lobbyists for nuclear
power. They now argue that a new generation of nuclear reactors is essential
if Britain is to meet its carbon emission targets. Indeed, so zealous are
these converts that they insist there should be no unnecessary delays imposed
on this programme through lengthy planning inquiries or legal challenges.
Mr Tindale, the former Greenpeace director, who apparently described his turn-around
as a "religious conversion", said that many more in the environment
movement think "nuclear power is not ideal but it's better than climate
change".
Might they in the foreseeable future also change their minds about GM crops?
Someone who does seem to be thinking along those lines is Sir Terry Leahy,
the chief executive of Tesco. He said (5) that consumer attitudes are changing
and that Tesco may be ready to get behind GM. “In some ways”,
he went on, “it may have been a failure of us all actually to stand
behind the science”. Sir Terry went on to tell his listeners at the
annual City Food Lecture in London that there was a sense that the scientific
evidence was always clear, but hesitation by governments and retailers to
endorse the crops certainly hasn’t helped things. Lest we forget, something
along those lines was said more than a year ago by the managing director of
Waitrose (5).
Are we on a roll? Can we expect more supermarket chief executives soon to
come out with similar statements? We seem to be living in exciting times.
Sources:
1. The road to Damascus: are there more opportunities for turning? CropGen
(1.2.09) (http://www.cropgen.org/article_217.html)
2. Tony Lodge (16.2.09). Barely a puff from wind energy. The Times
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5740576.ece)
3. Greens see the light on nuclear power. Daily Telegraph (23.2.09)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4786835/Greens-see-the-light-on-nuclear-power.html)
4. Louise Gray (23.2.09). Environmentalists change minds over nuclear.
Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/4787390/Environmentalists-change-minds-over-nuclear.html)
5. Stephen Daniells (16.2.09). Changing the tune on GM. Food Navigator
(http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Changing-the-tune-on-GM)
6. Mark Price. BBC News – Hardtalk (26.10.07)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7063487.stm)
<<<back
